PDA

View Full Version : World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur



Vincent
06-20-2010, 10:45 PM
This from lo less than Mort Zuckerman in US Snooze.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/06/18/mort-zuckerman-world-sees-obama-as-incompetent-and-amateur.html
Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
The president is well-intentioned but can't walk the walk on the world stage
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted June 18, 2010

President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president. Why? Because the United States stands on top of the power ladder, not necessarily as the dominant power, but certainly as the leading one. As such we are the sole nation capable of exercising global leadership on a whole range of international issues from security, trade, and climate to counterterrorism. We also benefit from the fact that most countries distrust the United States far less than they distrust one another, so we uniquely have the power to build coalitions. As a result, most of the world still looks to Washington for help in their region and protection against potential regional threats.

Yet, the Iraq war lingers; Afghanistan continues to be immersed in an endless cycle of tribalism, corruption, and Islamist resurgence; Guantánamo remains open; Iran sees how North Korea toys with Obama and continues its programs to develop nuclear weapons and missiles; Cuba spurns America's offers of a greater opening; and the Palestinians and Israelis find that it is U.S. policy positions that defer serious negotiations, the direct opposite of what the Obama administration hoped for.

The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama's policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama's severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.

Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things "must be done" and "should be done" and that "it is time" to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is "the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy."

In his Cairo speech about America and the Muslim world, Obama managed to sway Arab public opinion but was unable to budge any Arab leader. Even the king of Saudi Arabia, a country that depends on America for its survival, reacted with disappointment and dismay. Obama's meeting with the king was widely described as a disaster. This is but one example of an absence of the personal chemistry that characterized the relationships that Presidents Clinton and Bush had with world leaders. This is a serious matter because foreign policy entails an understanding of the personal and political circumstances of the leaders as well as the cultural and historical factors of the countries we deal with.

Les Gelb wrote of Obama, "He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion." Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn't—and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have. Or as one Middle East commentator put it, "There are always two chess games going on. One is on the top of the table, the other is below the table. The latter is the one that counts, but the Americans don't know how to play that game."

Recent U.S. attempts to introduce more meaningful sanctions against Iran produced a U.N. resolution that is way less than the "crippling" sanctions the administration promised. The United States even failed to achieve the political benefit of a unanimous Security Council vote. Turkey, the Muslim anchor of NATO for almost 60 years, and Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, voted against our resolution. Could it be that these long-standing U.S. allies, who gave cover to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions, have decided that there is no cost in lining up with America's most serious enemies and no gain in lining up with this administration?

The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. For example, Obama has asserted that America is not at war with the Muslim world. The problem is that parts of the Muslim world are at war with America and the West. Obama feels, fairly enough, that America must be contrite in its dealings with the Muslim world. But he has failed to address the religious intolerance, failing economies, tribalism, and gender apartheid that together contribute to jihadist extremism. This was startling and clear when he chose not to publicly support the Iranians who went to the streets in opposition to their oppressive government, based on a judgment that our support might be counterproductive. Yet, he reaches out instead to the likes of Bashar Assad of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab world, sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it continues to rearm Hezbollah in Lebanon and expands its role in the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance.

The underlying issue is that the Arab world has different estimates on how to deal with an aggressive, expansionist Iran. The Arabs believe you do not deal with Iran with the open hand of a handshake but with the clenched fist of power. Arab leaders fear an Iran proceeding full steam with its nuclear weapons program on top of its programs to develop intermediate-range ballistic missiles. All the while centrifuges keep spinning in Iran, and Arab leaders ask whether Iran will be emboldened by what they interpret as American weakness and faltering willpower. They did not see Obama or his administration as understanding the region, where naiveté is interpreted as a weakness of character, as amateurism, and as proof of the absence of the tough stuff of which leaders are made. (That's why many Arab leaders were appalled at the decision to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. After 9/11, many of them had engaged in secret counterterrorism activities under the umbrella of an American promise that these activities would never be made public; now they feared that this would be the exact consequence of an open trial.)

America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. One renowned Asian leader stated recently at a private dinner in the United States, "We in Asia are convinced that Obama is not strong enough to confront his opponents, but we fear that he is not strong enough to support his friends."

The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world. We have policed the sea lanes, protected the air and space domains, countered terrorism, responded to genocide, and been the bulwark against rogue states engaging in aggression. The world now senses, in the context of the erosion of America's economic power and the pressures of our budget deficits, that we will compress our commitments. But the world needs the vision, idealism, and strong leadership that America brings to international affairs. This can be done and must be done. But we are the only ones who can do it.

Mach1
06-20-2010, 11:14 PM
http://annika.mu.nu/archives/spineless-poster.jpg

Shea
06-20-2010, 11:26 PM
If only I had a dime for every Obama thread Vincent created ....

CHA CHING!

MasterOfPuppets
06-20-2010, 11:52 PM
i'm sure the author of this article wrote it without bias.... the jews don't like their cash cow talking to arabs.


Zuckerman is also an active supporter of Israeli and international Jewish causes. Between 2001 and 2003, Zuckerman was the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Typically, the nominating committee attempts to choose a person who is both respected and uncontroversial. However, Zuckerman was widely opposed by liberal Jewish factions. Nonetheless, Zuckerman was eventually elected and served a full term.

In their 2006 paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, named Zuckerman a member of the media wing of the "Israeli lobby" in the United States. Zuckerman replied: "I would just say this: The allegations of this disproportionate influence of the Jewish community reminds me of the 92-year-old man sued in a paternity suit. He said he was so proud; he pleaded guilty."

President George W. Bush appointed Zuckerman to serve on the Honorary Delegation to accompany him to Jerusalem for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel in May 2008.

lol.... looks like some of the zionist wanna jump off the US bandwagon and make russia its new BFF...


Things are getting desperate in the U.S. Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi of the Israel Project, an Israel lobby group, writes in the Jerusalem Post that America will never be the same, and it's time to remember Israel's shared values with the Russians:

The pro-Israel community must internalize... new realities... we must adapt and change the way we do business. We as a community continue doing things right, but are not doing the right things. http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/with-u...values.htmlOur strategies are outdated, akin to shining the chrome on a broken model-T instead of getting a new car to take us where we need to go.

Unfortunately, some in the pro-Israel community still want to use the models that do not work in the new order. Some pray for an Obama defeat that will bring back the old order. But no matter who wins elections, it is not coming back....

Importantly, Russia is already warm to Israel – a country with more than one million Russian speakers, significant shared values and many business ties.

i'm sure russia would be more than happy to take over the 3 billion dollar a year welfare payments....NOT !!!

HometownGal
06-21-2010, 06:59 AM
Well, really - a lot of us already knew he was incompetent and a bench warmer before he ever set foot in the Oval Office.


http://baddieoneshoe.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obama-dunce.jpg

suitanim
06-21-2010, 09:40 AM
They still love him in France...

HometownGal
06-21-2010, 02:16 PM
They still love him in France...

And in Kenya. :heh:

suitanim
06-22-2010, 11:27 AM
They are really starting to turn on him in GB. This fuck-knuckle may end up ruining the "special relationship" all by his lonesome.

SteelerEmpire
06-22-2010, 12:12 PM
Whats even sadder... I don't know of any known politician who could get up there and do any better...

Mach1
06-22-2010, 12:16 PM
Whats even sadder... I don't know of any known politician who could get up there and do any better...

Any politician who isn't hell bent on destroying this country would do.

SteelerEmpire
06-22-2010, 12:50 PM
Any politician who isn't hell bent on destroying this country would do.

Ha Ha.... and there lies the problem... they all say they want to help the country before they get in office ... but once they get in there its quite a different story...

HometownGal
06-22-2010, 01:17 PM
Any politician who isn't hell bent on destroying this country would do.

Just take comfort, as I do MACH, knowing that I didn't help to put this mindless goober into the White House. :drink:

Dino 6 Rings
06-22-2010, 04:24 PM
"Mr President, How do you feel about the rest of the world thinking you are weak?"

"well um, ya know, the world is important, and as part of the world community its imperative that we um, work together to come to an understanding on the issues."

"Mr President, they think you're inept and are laughing at you."

"well um...um sometimes, humor is good when action would only cause conflict, so um...sometimes when I'm talking with my daughters, they ask me, 'daddy, did you plug the hole yet' and I laugh at the wonder of children."

"Mr President, do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons."

"Well you see, Iran is this small country, not a big worry, um...they wouldn't um...really use nuclear weapons, on um...Israel but its a concern when they won't come to the table and um, negotiate a better way of getting power and energy, so um, we as a world community need to talk about the issue."

"Mr President, how is your golf game"

"You see, um...sometimes when I'm playing golf, I'm thinking about the 57 states, and um...the Gulf and how troublesome those things are down there, and what we as a nation need to do in order to have more alternative energy."

"Mr President, is it true you had homosexuall sex in a club in Chicago called 'Man's Country'"

"Um..ya see, sometimes in life, we all make choices, and its those choices that determine um...whether or not we can have relationships with the people we um...love and want to share our lives with, and then go golfing."

suitanim
06-22-2010, 08:25 PM
Here's Obama's problem. He said "I'll fix ALL your problems...I promise".

Dumb.

How about "Here are the 3 biggest problems we face. AFTER I fix problem one, I'll focus on problem two, and after that's fixed, I'll work on problem three". Instead, we have an amateur trying to spread almost no real problem solving skills VERY thinly across 100 problems, all of which seem to be getting worse.

The WH
06-23-2010, 05:12 PM
America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. One renowned Asian leader stated recently at a private dinner in the United States, "We in Asia are convinced that Obama is not strong enough to confront his opponents, but we fear that he is not strong enough to support his friends."
What Asian leader was it?

Vincent
06-29-2010, 08:41 PM
What Asian leader was it?

Akagi

st33lersguy
07-02-2010, 08:13 PM
This article doesn't surprise me in the least, this airheaded coward's presidency has been such a disaster.

SteelerEmpire
07-02-2010, 10:03 PM
I still submit that no one else could have done to much of a better job...

WindyCitySteelerFan
07-06-2010, 09:50 AM
I still submit that no one else could have done to much of a better job...

If we would pull up the dead corpse of Ronald Reagan, he would still do a better job than Obama.

Vincent
07-06-2010, 09:52 AM
What he said.

BPS3akaWirels3
07-06-2010, 10:01 AM
There is a poll on PG today asking if we feel favorable/unfavorable about him. 58% say unfavorable.... lol

The WH
07-06-2010, 10:41 AM
Reagan was a two big corporate hack, you're crazy.

BPS3akaWirels3
07-06-2010, 10:44 AM
Reagan was a two big corporate hack, you're crazy.

Grrrrrr..... Reagan was a GREAT President...

st33lersguy
07-06-2010, 11:34 AM
Reagan was a two big corporate hack, you're crazy.

Reagan understood economics unlike your savior Barack Obama. Under Reagan and his plan for low taxes and low spending this country recovered from the economic disaster brought to you by Jimmy Carter another leftist loon who knew nothing about economics

SteelerEmpire
07-06-2010, 12:13 PM
Reagan understood economics unlike your savior Barack Obama. Under Reagan and his plan for low taxes and low spending this country recovered from the economic disaster brought to you by Jimmy Carter another leftist loon who knew nothing about economics

I voted for Reagan back then. He did some good and not so good things though. I remember he ran up the countries debt pretty high as well though via military spending as I was in the service at the time...

The WH
07-06-2010, 12:24 PM
Reagan understood economics unlike your savior Barack Obama. Under Reagan and his plan for low taxes and low spending this country recovered from the economic disaster brought to you by Jimmy Carter another leftist loon who knew nothing about economics
He ain't my savior dude, but Reaganomics were trash.

Vincent
07-06-2010, 02:09 PM
… but Reaganomics were trash.
This is what results from ideology clouding perspective.

“Reaganomics”, or as Bush 41 referred to the concept, “voodoo economics”, was neither Dutch’s idea, or even a new idea. It was but another application of the time proven theory that lower tax rates generate higher tax revenues, something that the mental disorder “liberalism” prevents it’s victims from seeing. To Bush 41’s credit though, once on the Reagan ticket, he was a good soldier for two terms before reverting back to his liberal self.

What has been expressed in recent times as “the Laffer Curve” is not even Arthur Laffer’s idea per se. Laffer himself credits the 14th century Ibn Khaldun for the idea. Regardless of it’s origin, history bears out it’s efficacy.

Andrew Mellon set the stage for sane tax policy (if there is such a thing) when he said “The problem of the Government is to fix rates which will bring in a maximum amount of revenue to the Treasury and at the same time bear not too heavily on the taxpayer or on business enterprises. A sound tax policy must take into consideration three factors. It must produce sufficient revenue for the Government; it must lessen, so far as possible, the burden of taxation on those least able to bear it ; and it must also remove those influences which might retard the continued steady development of business and industry on which, in the last analysis, so much of our prosperity depends. Furthermore, a permanent tax system should be designed not merely for one or two years nor for the effect it may have on any given class of taxpayers, but should be worked out with regard to conditions over a long period and with a view to its ultimate effect on the prosperity of the country as a whole.”. Put another way, tax what the market will bear without destroying the market. What he described is what would come to be known as the “Laffer Curve”.

He went on to note that "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates.". This concept flies in the face of liberalism and is anathema to everything liberals stand for.

Regardless of one’s perspective, the gubmint should be bound and shackled to spend no more than it takes in under any circumstances and without regard to politics.

My own position on taxation is this.

The federalies are responsible for maintaining and defending the borders, maintaining a viable currency, mediating issues in federal courts, and providing suitable meeting accommodations for the elected representatives from the states. Period. All else belongs to the states. We need the best fighting force on the planet, so invest ¾ of a $T annually in that. The rest can be accommodated well inside of a Trillion.

The most recent IRS AGI data put $9T of personal income up for grabs. The balance of the $14.58T GDP is corporate. If the federalies must tax, then tax “fairly”. Tax everybody and everything at the same rate. 10% would more than accommodate the legitimate federal responsibility. At 10% across the board, the economy would turn white hot rendering massive revenues for the states to tax. Point is the federalies could tax at 7% and operate at a surplus if they’d stick to their legitimate scope of responsibilities.

But communists and their ideological brethren don’t like such ideas.

NJarhead
07-06-2010, 02:18 PM
Reagan's administration thought that lowering taxes would promote business, spending and investing and therefore lead to MORE tax revenue; they were wrong, but it doesn't seem like a ridiculous thought now does it? The theory was not even theirs to begin with, it was a much older idea than that (forget the name of the economist).

Regardless, Ronald Reagan was a good fucking leader, this idiot is the antithesis of anything that resembles a leader.

Godfather
07-07-2010, 07:28 PM
Reagan was a two big corporate hack, you're crazy.

And he was a piker compared to Obama. The Gipper didn't give trillion-dollar handouts to Fortune 500 companies or force people to hand over their hard earned money to HMOs.

steelwalls
07-07-2010, 08:30 PM
And how would Obama have handled Russia and the cold war at that time. Lemme guess, I soft handshake and a bow?

Like HTG, I feel at least some comfort in the fact I wasnt one who helped him into office.

steelwalls
07-07-2010, 08:46 PM
I have to come back to this, cause the part about China and the way they treated him on his visit made me think of something.

I remember when Obama came (Ive lived here for 5 or 6 years now) the media here had it live when he met Hu Jin Tao, I was watching, Obama immediatly bowed, and I cringed... There is one country China hates FAR more than anyone else in the world and thats Japan. Since bowing is a Japanese custom and not a Chinese custom, some here actualy find it a bit offensive. Wonder if that contributed to the reason why that was pretty much the last you seen of his trip? Do a little homework before you bow to everyone....dammmm....

Vincent
07-07-2010, 09:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1OxkFOK18

bho ain't never had it. And peeps seem to know.

Mach1
07-07-2010, 11:31 PM
Day 79

And the Savior is off to spend 4 days in Vegas.

tony hipchest
07-08-2010, 12:27 AM
Reagan's administration thought that lowering taxes would promote business, spending and investing and therefore lead to MORE tax revenue; they were wrong, but it doesn't seem like a ridiculous thought now does it?

not at all.


http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/7/129021008687645509.jpg

MasterOfPuppets
07-08-2010, 10:29 AM
Reagan's administration thought that lowering taxes would promote business, spending and investing and therefore lead to MORE tax revenue; they were wrong, but it doesn't seem like a ridiculous thought now does it? The theory was not even theirs to begin with, it was a much older idea than that (forget the name of the economist).

Regardless, Ronald Reagan was a good fucking leader, this idiot is the antithesis of anything that resembles a leader.
and didn't the deficit triple under reagan ?

Mach1
07-08-2010, 01:04 PM
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0810/spread-the-wealth-marx-spread-the-wealth-demotivational-poster-1224875152.jpg

NJarhead
07-08-2010, 02:20 PM
not at all.


http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/7/129021008687645509.jpg

That's all you've got? How long did you and Ric work on that one?

NJarhead
07-08-2010, 02:25 PM
and didn't the deficit triple under reagan ?
You can't blame a deficit on one man or only cite one portion of the economy. JOBS have an amazing way of making all that shit work out. What's your dipshit in the WH doing about that right now?

As I said Reagan = FUCKING LEADER / Obama = FUCKING LOSER.

MasterOfPuppets
07-08-2010, 02:32 PM
You can't blame a deficit on one man or only cite one portion of the economy.

of course you can..it's done here all the time ...:noidea:



9.5% unemployment and the Reagan-Obama parallel
The jobless rate was exactly the same at this point in Reagan's presidency. But will the comparison hold up?
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/02/unemployment_numbers_context

Vincent
07-08-2010, 02:47 PM
and didn't the deficit triple under reagan ?

Who budgets and spends the money?

MasterOfPuppets
07-08-2010, 03:02 PM
Who budgets and spends the money?

the OMB :noidea:

The WH
07-08-2010, 04:11 PM
You can't blame a deficit on one man or only cite one portion of the economy. JOBS have an amazing way of making all that shit work out. What's your dipshit in the WH doing about that right now?



Reagan gave as much of a shit about Joe jobs as Obama does.

NJarhead
07-08-2010, 04:18 PM
Reagan gave as much of a shit about Joe jobs as Obama does.

How so?

I notice that NO ONE seems to want to argue the "leadership aspect/comparison" of the two.

suitanim
07-08-2010, 04:29 PM
The ONLY problem with Reagan's economic policy was that it made it too easy for companies to off-shore, and they did it too fast. But that was inevitable.

You can't have a World filled with have's and have not's. There is only one way to level the playing field, at least a little bit. Reagan facilitated this and is wildly hated and despised by the liberals for this...however, this is also the same left that espouses World Communism or whatever they call it.

Reagan tax cuts INCREASED tax revenues. Look here...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/12/~/media/Images/Reports/B_1544_Chart_1lg_4/taxcuts2002.ashx

The WH
07-08-2010, 05:14 PM
Reagan tax cuts INCREASED tax revenues. Look here...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/12/~/media/Images/Reports/B_1544_Chart_1lg_4/taxcuts2002.ashx in the short term, sure, but once everyone started offshoring tax revenues fell like a rock and government spending went up because of unemployment claims.

suitanim
07-08-2010, 05:51 PM
That's looking at 3 trees in a forest. As usual, you only have a simple view of the complexity here. Unemployment claims are NEVER any kind of real significant spending in a budget that is in the trillions.

You need to do more research. Check out unemployment numbers in the US under Carter vs. Reagan, and then even Bush 1. I mean, I don't think you could be more wrong here if you tried...

Vincent
07-08-2010, 11:32 PM
the OMB :noidea:

The President proposes a budget to Congress recommending funding for the next fiscal year. Congressional budget committees actually define spending for House and Senate committees. Appropriations subcommittees approve appropriations bills for various programs. Approved appropriations bills are sent to the President for signature or veto. Congress can override a veto.

Congress budgets and spends money.

During the Reagan years the dems used to scoff at Dutch's budgets as DOA then go spend like drunken sailors in port. The dems and the press would then refer to the deficit as the "Reagan deficit".

The WH
07-09-2010, 03:17 AM
That's looking at 3 trees in a forest. As usual, you only have a simple view of the complexity here. Unemployment claims are NEVER any kind of real significant spending in a budget that is in the trillions.

.

::eyeroll:: whatever revs.